This was originally a scholarly article written as a discussion of whether conflict in teams is both inevitable and necessary. The style is a little more formal for that reason.
Modern organisations are increasingly reliant on teams and teamwork to conduct the bulk of their business. These teams exist at all levels – from manufacturing and customer support at the front-line of operations, through management layers and even into the executive management of a organisation and its board of directors or trustees. Teams can be formed from groups of workers within a single area of responsibility, or can be cross-functional teams including participants from many different parts of the organisation working together on a single project. Following improvements in telecommunications and information technology, team members may not even be in the same physical location, but make up “virtual” teams representing different geographic locations or simply taking advantage of the ability to work remotely.
At the same time as teams and teamwork are becoming more important,
the working population is continuing to diversify, including people
with obvious differences in gender and racial background, but also
including the less-obvious diversity of people from a wider range of
disciplines and training backgrounds than were previously evident in
business. With the aging population of many Western nations, there is
also greater likelihood of a wide range of ages being included in any
given work group, which in turn leads to diversity of experiences,
attitudes and expectations between team members.
This increase in diversity
leads to the question of conflict occurring between team members.
Although conflict is traditionally regarded as a negative thing, and
not conducive to productivity and satisfaction, some recent theories
of management practice suggest that conflict may have beneficial
effects on performance. This essay examines the question of whether
conflict in teams is both inevitable and necessary,
with a focus on the modern working environment. The evolution of
thinking around this question – in particular the necessity
of conflict – will be studied along with the results of experiments
performed by researchers in the field.
It is clear from the literature that this topic is very controversial
and the subject of continuing debate amongst management theorists.
This paper will examine and present the argument that although
conflict of some form is highly likely in modern teams, and although
it can lead to some benefits in innovation and performance, the
negative factors are such as to make it highly undesirable, and that
conflict management techniques should be used to mediate these
negative effects.
What is conflict?
In order to properly understand whether conflict is inevitable or
necessary, it is important to understand what is meant by conflict in
the context of workplace teams. Intragroup conflict can be broadly
defined as perceived incompatibilities between team members
(Jehn, 1995), but it is self-evident that incompatibilities can take
more than one form, and so the nature of conflict must be further
investigated.
Early theories of the types of conflict include structural models
(Deutsch, as cited in Korsgaard, et al, 2008), and process models
(Pondy, 1967). Structural models theorise that conflict occurs as a
result of interdependence and incompatibility between parties; when
goals of one team member can only be achieved at the expense of
another team member, conflict is increasingly likely to result. It is
the structure of the inter-relationship between parties which gives
rise to conflict, and in this theory focus is given to the importance
of task characteristics, social context, and the relationships of
participants.
Process models take the view that conflict is a series of episodes,
each of which commences with some pre-existing conflict potentials,
and concludes with an aftermath which affects future episodes. The
participants in the conflict go through a process of interpretation,
or sense making, after each event which leads to feelings, thoughts
and actions in response, which in turn leads to consequences for
future interactions of the parties. The process model highlights the
role of perception in conflict development, and is infused with
affective reactions such as anger (Korsgaard et al, 2008).
The combination of structural and process theories suggest that
conflict can be seen as three linked factors leading to conflict
(Korsgaard et al, 2008), viz:
-
Inputs (individual differences; individual traits; task structure; social context) leading to...
-
Behaviour (conflict provoking behaviour; 2-person exchanges; group interactions) leading to...
-
Sense Making (identifying an event as an offence; laying blame on another party) which leads to conflict
Manifestations of conflict include frustration, anger, intentions to
rectify and/or retaliate, and interference of cognition and
effectiveness.
More recent studies of intragroup conflict have focussed on
distinguishing between different types of conflict, and their effects
on teams where the group is responsible for some collective product
or decision (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). The current typology of
conflict includes three broad areas; task conflict,
relationship conflict, and process conflict (Jehn,
1997; Korsgaard et al, 2008)
Task conflict (also known as cognitive conflict) is disagreement
related to the job at hand: what should be included in the task, how
to approach it, ideas, issues and content. Task conflict has a
predominantly intellectual basis, and is strongly influenced by
disparate backgrounds in the participants of a team (Li &
Hambrick, 2005).
Relationship conflict (also referred to as affective conflict)
involves interpersonal incompatibilities, tension and antagonism
(Jehn, 1995). It has an emotional basis and impacts the ability of
team members to share and assess information within the group (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001)
Process conflict, according to Jehn (1997), is “conflict about
how task accomplishment should proceed in the work unit, who's
responsible for what, and how things should be delegated”.
It is more about the logistics of “who does what” rather than the
task conflict nature of “what should be done”. Process conflicts
impact on the team's ability to coordinate effectively (Greer, Jehn &
Mannix, 2008).
It is also important to understand that conflict is dynamic – it
evolves over time, and the above three types of conflict can interact
and transform from one kind into another during the lifespan of a
team (Greer, et al, 2008).
Is conflict inevitable?
It can be asserted that conflict in teams is inevitable since
creative collaboration is often the team's reason for existence
(Kling 2009), and indeed although this assertion may not be
completely borne out in all cases, the literature generally seems to
take conflict of some kind as a given in team environments and any
other kind of group or organisation (eg Jehn, 1995; De Dreu 2008).
In a study of 60 cross-functional teams in high technology companies
(Lovelace , Shapiro & Weingart, 2001), it was found that all
teams experienced some degree of intra-team disagreement. Hobman &
Bordia (2006) also found direct associations between dissimilarity in
individuals and the likelihood of conflict; given that everyone
brings some degree of difference to any group, conflict of some kind
is likely to occur.
However, it is worth considering whether the inevitability of
conflict in the workplace is influenced by cultural constraints.
Individual performance and achievement is generally well-regarded in
the individualistic Anglo-American cultures (including Australia),
but in collectivist cultures such as those found in Asia and Southern
Europe, greater emphasis is placed on intragroup harmony and
personal relationships, and conflict may be perceived as a threat to
the interests of the team (Passos & Caetano, 2005; Hempel, Zhang
& Tjosvold, 2009).
Is conflict necessary?
From the 1990's until the present,
conflict in teams has been interpreted as a vital component of team
success (eg Amason et al, 1995; Karnani, 2008; Flanagan & Runde,
2009), and studies have shown that some degree of conflict may
be required to develop more creative thinking than might be achieved
in a group with convergent thinking (Jehn, 1995). It has also been
suggested that in cases where pressure is being applied by an
external source, the “groupthink” of convergent teams may lead to
the premature selection of a less than optimal solution (Paulus,
2002). Conflict, however, can introduce “vigorous debate” on
issues requiring critical analysis or innovative thinking (Flanagan &
Runde, 2008).
Through interviews with managers of teams, Amason et al (1995) found
that the presence of task conflict enhanced the ability of teams to
make creative decisions. This improved creativity was reported in
cases where participants brought different points of view to a
problem and were supported by the right environment to manage the
conflict. In their interviews, participants related the belief that
the improved creativity of teams with some degree of task conflict
resulted in valuable business decisions, and that the lack of
conflict in some decisions resulted in substantial costs or failures.
It is important to note that the type of conflict apparently yielding
positive results in the above is task conflict. In cases where
relationship conflict is evident in a team, the effect becomes
dysfunctional, and can be a serious impairment to team performance
(Amason, 1996). Similarly, process conflict has be found to
have both a negative impact on team performance itself, and also the
quality of transforming to other types of conflict over time,
especially if experienced in the early life of a team (Greer et al,
2008).
As mentioned above, the correct supportive environment must be in
place to gain the maximum innovative benefit of task conflict. This
includes the freedom of team members to express doubts without a
“win-lose” position being taken by other members of the team:
that ideas can be freely expressed without the danger of participants
self-censoring. When combined with collaborative communications,
this allows for differences in ideas to be exchanged and developed by
the team as a whole, rather than becoming the focus of antagonism and
dissatisfaction (Lovelace et al, 2001). Participants must have a
sense of trust and safety in their interactions, and possess
sufficient emotional intelligence to be aware and cope if and when
constructive conflict deteriorates into destructive behaviours
(Flanagan & Runde, 2009).
Whilst the introduction of task conflict into a team in order to
generate more creative ideas is often regarded as a positive thing,
West (2002) has argued that it is implementation rather than
creativity and idea generation that is the important factor in team
performance, and that this requires high degrees of collaboration.
Furthermore, De Dreu (2006) shows that the positive benefits of
conflict on performance follows a curve – although a small amount
can help stimulate ideas outside the status quo, too much conflict
has a greatly negative impact (see Figure 1)
 |
| Figure 1: Curvilinear Relationship Between Task Conflict and Team Innovation (from De Dreu 2006) |
Intentionally introducing conflict (by, for example, assembling
extreme diverse teams) is extremely difficult to manage; Chen (2006)
notes that careful timing of positive conflict is necessary, along
with training in conflict awareness and the development of
significant trust and psychological support within the team. This may
be a significant additional effort, since the diverse groups
assembled in order to introduce task conflict are also likely to be
sufficiently divergent that process conflicts will also arise (Jehn,
Northcraft & Neale, 1999). The time taken for conflict awareness
training and the development of team cohesion must be accounted for
in a project's schedule and costs.
Similarly, in their study of cross-functional teams, Lovelace,
Shapiro & Weingart (2001) found that innovation and time &
cost efficiency was most positively influenced by the way their
disagreements were managed by teams members as well as leaders.
Successful conflict resolution techniques require the team members to
have a shared sense of responsibility and purpose (Flanagan &
Runde, 2009), yet developing the skills for effective conflict
management are an additional cost to the organisation in terms of
both money and time.
Careful management of conflict is also needed because, according to
De Dreu (2008), there is only a very narrow set of conditions under
which conflict has a positive function. For example, conflicts should
be task conflicts only, be of no more than moderate intensity,
and are only of use if the team would otherwise have preferred a
“suboptimal” solution.
It should also be noted that for teams working on a well-defined
procedural task rather than a problem requiring innovative solutions,
task conflict is perceived as a significant source of dissatisfaction
and negative performance impact, since it distracts team members form
the “real” work they are trying to achieve (Jehn, 1995).
Meta-analysis of many research reports has found that while
relationship conflict had the expected negative impact on team
effectiveness and satisfaction, task conflict was equally negative in
many the reported studies, and could not be clearly identified as
purely positive in any (De Dreu & Weingart , 2003). De Dreu
(2008) also notes the various costs of conflict and conflict
management: in time, health and well-being of participants, and the
displacement of costs to a third party (for example, the
end-customer). The introduction of these (often initially hidden)
costs must affect an organisation's decision on whether to introduce
conflict, and how best to manage conflict overall. With this in mind
it has been suggested that constructive conflict management is
essential for mitigating the broadly negative effects of conflict in
teams (De Dreu 2008).
Conclusion
The investigation, classification and analysis of different types of
intragroup conflict has been going on for several decades, leading to
ever-more nuanced understandings of how people interact in teams.
That conflict will occur seems to be universally accepted as
inevitable in the Anglo-American world, although the prevalence of
intragroup conflict may be muted in more collectivist cultures where
group harmony and interpersonal relationships are an intrinsic part
of business.
Relationship conflict is almost universally regarded as being
detrimental to team performance, and process conflict has been shown
to be very damaging especially when encountered in the early stages
of a team's lifespan. What remains contentious is the degree to which
task conflict is necessary or even desirable. It certainly appears to
be the case that for teams required to produce innovative results (as
opposed to those performing well-defined and standardized
procedures), some degree of task conflict is necessary in order to
generate a wider range of ideas that might otherwise be developed by
a group with convergent thinking. This concept has even given rise to
the saying “thinking outside the box”, which is often hailed as a
positive concept in modern business.
It is important to understand that all conflict - however benign -
comes at a cost of some kind, and the additional time required to
work through the increased range of ideas brought about by task
conflict may not be available in certain types of project. Similarly,
process conflict can substantially affect the efficient delivery of
the end result, and if implementation is an important factor, then
group cohesion and well-defined roles should also be considered
vital. Finally, attention should be paid to the idea that conflict is
dynamic, and without careful management can easily transform from
task-based to relationship- and/or process-based, and hence cause
significant damage to team cohesion, performance and participant
satisfaction.
It appears that introducing conflict in order to improve team
performance is a technique fraught with peril, and requires a great
deal of skill to manage effectively: if conflict is necessary, it is
a necessary evil. In any case, proper management strategies
should be put into place in order to deal with the inevitable
conflict that will arise in teams, with a focus on reducing the
negative impact, rather than any attempt to engender productivity
gains which may never be realised.
References
Amason, A., Thompson, K., Hochwarter, W., & Harrison, A. (1995,
September). Conflict: An Important Dimension in Successful Management
Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.
Amason, A. (1996, February). DISTINGUISHING THE EFFECTS OF FUNCTIONAL
AND DYSFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT ON STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING: RESOLVING A
PARADOX FOR TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS. Academy of Management Journal,
39(1), 123-148. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Business
Source Premier database.
Chen, M. (2006, March). Understanding the Benefits and Detriments of
Conflict on Team Creativity Process. Creativity & Innovation
Management, 15(1), 105-116. Retrieved February 3, 2009,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00373.x
De Dreu, C., & Weingart, L. (2003, August). Task Versus
Relationship Conflict, Team Performance, and Team Member
Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(4), 741-749. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Business
Source Premier database.
De Dreu, C. (2006, February). When Too Little of Too Much Hurts:
Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship Between Conflict and
Innovation in Teams. Journal of Management, 32(1),
83-108. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Business Source Premier
database.
De Dreu, C. (2008, January). The virtue and vice of workplace
conflict: food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 5-18. Retrieved February
3, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.
Flanagan, T., & Runde, C. (2008, May). Hidden potential:
Embracing conflict can pay off for teams. Leadership in Action,
28(2), 8-12. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from Wiley
Interscience database.
Flanagan, T., & Runde, C.
(2009, May). How teams can capitalize on conflict. Strategy
& Conflict, 37(1),
20-22. Retrieved February 18, 2009, from Emerald Publishing database,
doi: 10.1108/10878570910926025
Greer, L., Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2008, June). Conflict
Transformation: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationships
Between Different Types of Intragroup Conflict and the Moderating
Role of Conflict Resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3),
278-302. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Academic Search Premier
database.
Hempel, P., Zhang, Z., & Tjosvold, D. (2009, January). Conflict
management between and within teams for trusting relationships and
performance in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
30(1), 41-65. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Business Source
Premier database.
Hobman, E., & Bordia, P. (2006, October). The Role of Team
Identification in the Dissimilarity—Conflict Relationship. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 483-507.
Retrieved February 3, 2009, doi:10.1177/1368430206067559
Jehn, K. (1995, June). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and
Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. Retrieved February 3, 2009,
from Business Source Premier database.
Jehn, K. (1997, September). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types
and Dimensions in Organizational Groups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557. Retrieved February 3, 2009,
from Business Source Premier database.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999, December). Why
Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict,
and Performance in Workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(4), 741-763. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from Business
Source Premier database.
Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001, April). THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF
CONFLICT: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF INTRAGROUP CONFLICT AND GROUP
PERFORMANCE. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2),
238-251. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Business Source Premier
database.
Karnani, A. (2008, December). Controversy: The essence of strategy.
Business Strategy Review, 19(4), 28-34. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.2008.00560.x
Kling, J. (2009, January). Tension in Teams. Harvard Management
Update, 14(1), 3-4. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from
Business Source Premier database.
Korsgaard, M., Soyoung Jeong, S., Mahony, D., & Pitaru, A. (2008,
December). A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict. Journal of
Management, 34(6), 1222-1252. Retrieved February 3, 2009,
from Business Source Premier database.
LI, J., & Hambrick, D. (2005, October). FACTIONAL GROUPS: A NEW
VANTAGE ON DEMOGRAPHIC FAULTLINES, CONFLICT, AND DISINTEGRATION IN
WORK TEAMS. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5),
794-813. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Business Source Premier
database.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D., & Weingart, L. (2001, August).
MAXIMIZING CROSS-FUNCTIONAL NEW PRODUCT TEAMS' INNOVATIVENESS AND
CONSTRAINT ADHERENCE: A CONFLICT COMMUNICATIONS PERSPECTIVE. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(4), 779-793. Retrieved February
3, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.
Passos, A., & Caetano, A. (2005, May). Exploring the effects of
intragroup conflict and past performance feedback on team
effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4),
231-244. Retrieved February 3, 2009, doi:10.1108/02683940510589028
Paulus, P. (2002, July). Different Ponds for Different Fish: A
Contrasting Perspective on Team Innovation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 51(3), 394-399. Retrieved February
4, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.
Pondy, L. (1967, September). Organizational Conflict: Concepts and
Models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2),
296-320. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Business Source Premier
database.
West, M. (2002, July). Ideas are Ten a Penny: It’s Team
Implementation not Idea Generation that Counts. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 411-424.
Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
No comments:
Post a Comment